Comeliness and Charisma

[Roman]

I noticed in several discussions that there seems to be a significant amount of hostility towards the idea of "Comeliness" as an attribute. The bone of contention generally tends to be that "Beauty" is in the eye of the beholder - every culture perceives different things as beautiful and this is amplified once you cross the boundaries of species. Well, this is true, but people do not seem to have much problem with charisma and I can assure you that 'personal magnetism' and what type of personality is liked also vary accross cultures and would vary enormously accross species. Neither is universal, so why is the idea of comeliness so much less popular than that of charisma?

 

[Crothian]

Charisma is official. Anything official will be seen as more populiar then a house rule.

Persoanlly, I allow people to decide if they are hansome pretty, ugly or what not. I don't feel we need to stat it out.

 

[CalrinAlshaw]

Dunno, but it's the only stat in games I play that gets a simple 3d6 keep what you get. (Because its funny to see how ugly some guys get) One guy ACTUALLY got a 3 in my current 2ed game...he wears a mask

Calrin Alshaw

 

[Roman]

Charisma is official. Anything official will be seen as more populiar then a house rule.

This is very true.

Personally, I allow people to decide if they are hansome pretty, ugly or what not. I don't feel we need to stat it out.

I see what you mean, but I suppose the same argument can be made for letting them decide how outgoing/social, etc they are...

 

[Rl'Halsinor]

Long before there was 2E we had a house rule for a "Comeliness" stat all the way back in the very early 80s. We even called it just that, comeliness. Like anything else, if it works for your campaign so be it. Roman, I concur with what you have stated about Charisma not being universal across cultures just like physical beauty. Okay, now let the hostility begin.

 

[Crothian]

I see what you mean, but I suppose the same argument can be made for letting them decide how outgoing/social, etc they are...

Except there is an official way to deal with that. See how easy this is

That was a bit in jest, but its also a good place to draw the line. I don't feel that more stats are needed, and getting rid of one I think would be more troublesome then adding one.

 

[Crothian]

Long before there was 2E we had a house rule for a "Comeliness" stat all the way back in the very early 80s. We even called it just that, comeliness.

Well, long before 2E was released comliness came out in Unearthed Arcana, a first edition book.

 

[ruleslawyer]

This is very true.



I see what you mean, but I suppose the same argument can be made for letting them decide how outgoing/social, etc they are...

Except that force of presence and personal magnetism are unbelievably important in any game that uses social skills and feats like Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Leadership, all of which have a strong mechanical component and grant serious mechanical benefits. Good looks, OTOH, don't pair well with practically any hard-stat benefit, and IMHO would really only come into play as a possible circumstance benefit to the potentially-affected set of parties. I'd prefer to just distill good looks into a feat:

ALLURE [General]
You are of striking physical beauty, and can use that beauty to your advantage.
Prerequisites: Charisma 13+
Benefit: When dealing with a person or persons of similar race and opposite gender, you gain a +2 bonus to all Charisma-based skill and ability checks except for Intimidate checks. "Similar race" generally means same type and subtype, though at the DM's option, certain subtypes (elves and humans, for instance) may qualify.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Frankly the problem is that the D&D stats are not pinned down to a specific quality.

Strength is not just your fast action muscles, nor your bulk, nor anything like that - it's a combination of many factors. It's up to the player to decide how his character's strength manifests.

Constitution is not just a characters tolerance for pain - it also covers his resistance to drugs, some magic etc etc. Again - up to the player to represent.

Dexterity: spryness, quickness, manual accuracy etc. Up to the player.

Wisdom, intelligence - same thing. Up to the player. So mixed up you can't really seperate out exactly what each attribute covers except in game terms.

Charisma. Same again - how nice the guy looks, how big his smile is, how he speaks, the force of his personality. All this falls under charisma. It's up to the player how he plays this - perhaps the high charisma paladin is simply grizzled, war-torn, gruff and very authoritative. Perhaps he's drop-dead gorgeous and has all the right moves.

There's no need to add an extra stat in. The current ones cover it nicely, and the player can add flavour to taste.

And all that's ignoring the effects of the disguise skill, the hat of disguise, alter self, polymorph self etc etc. All of which would blow a 'comeliness' stat out the window.

In short - too difficult to implement, and of limited to zero value in a game.

 

[Sejs]

What Sav said.

The stats all cover a wide range of subset abilities for each category they typify. Strength isn't just bulk. Dexterity isn't just flexibility. Charisma isn't just how pretty you are. Likewise, within each stat you're totally free to juggle around the component bits. You can have a high strength character that doesn't have big muscles, maybe instead he's wiry and has an overabundance of energy. You can have a high charisma character that looks like he was painted on with a knife, or a low charisma character that is a real looker but absolutly lacking in self-confidence.

There's no need for a seperate comeliness stat, because frankly it doesn't affect anything on its own.